A damming indictment of George 'W' bush and the Republican Party's 'cut taxes and spend even more' philosophy.

And now for some quotes from the 2001 era from Mr. Alan Greenspan's book, 'Age of Turbulence.'

We start on page 213, enter George 'W' Bush.

"The other issue looming large for the Fed was the disappearance of the national debt.  Strange as it may seem in hindsight, in January 2001 the possibility was real.   Nearly a decade of rising productivity and growth and budget discipline had put the U.S. government in a position to generate surplus's 'as far as the eye could see,' to borrow the phrase coined by President Reagan's budget director David Stockman in projecting deficits nearly two decades earlier.  Even allowing for the recession that might now be setting in, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was getting ready to raise its projection of the surplus to a stunning $5.6 trillion over ten years.  This was $3 trillion higher than the CBO had forecast in 1999, and $1 trillion more than it had predicted just the previous July."

Folks, look at what Republicans have done to our mighty and proud nation.  Another excerpt from Alan Greenspan's 'Age of Turbulence' on Republican malfeasance in the 21st century.

"But now the projected surpluses were so large that debt repayment would be completed within a very few years. Yet the surpluses would continue.  The CBO statisticians now envisioned the surpluses under current policy at $281 billion in 2001, $313 billion in 2002, $359 billion in 2003, and so on.  Assuming no major shift in fiscal policy, the CBO expected the reducible debt to be fully paid off by 2006; any surpluses thereafter would have to be held in some form of non-federal assets.  In 2006 the surplus would break $500 billion.  Thereafter, more than a half trillion extra dollars would flow into Uncle Sam's coffers each year."

And now, the last and most insightful quote of them all. It shows the Republican Party's ideological philosophy in the 21st century according to lifetime Republican, Alan Greenspan, in his book 'The Age of Turbulence', from page 217.

"Little value was placed rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences."

Let's explore Republican fiscal policy using Alan Greenspan's book 'The Age of Turbulence.'

From page 102, we have the following tidbit of his thoughts at the end of 1988.

"The economic indicators, meanwhile, were far from encouraging.  Huge government deficits under Reagan had caused the national debt to the public to almost triple, from just under $700 billion at the start of his presidency to more than $2 trillion at the end of fiscal year 1988.  The dollar was falling, and people were worried about America losing its competitive edge."

and from page 112, a quote taken from the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency.

"When George Bush won that fall, I hoped the Fed and his administration would get along.  Everybody knew that whoever came in after Reagan would face huge economic challenges: not just an eventual downturn in the business cycle, but whopping deficits and the rapidly mounting national debt."

Then Sir Greespan takes a walk down memory lane with his concerns for 'Bubba' Clinton

On page 143,

In 1993, "Clinton had outlined a broad, ambitious economic agenda during his campaign.  He wanted to cut taxes on the middle class, halve the federal deficit, stimulate job growth, increase U.s. competitiveness through new education and training programs, invest in the nation's infrastructure, and more."   

and

"If he wanted to address the economy's long-term health, the deficit was by far the most pressing concern.  I'd made that argument at the start of Bush's term, and now the problem was four years worse.  The national debt held by the public had risen to $3 trillion, causing interest payments to become the third-largest federal expense after Social Security and defense."  

and on pages 184-5, some quotes from the middle of Bubba's presidency from Mr. Alan Greenspan's book.

"Almost overnight, the Clinton administration found itself facing a budget surplus that was expanding as fast as the budget had dwindled."

"Not a single Republican had voted for the milestone deficit-reduction budget in 1993."

"My longtime involvement in Social Security reform had made me all too aware that, in the not-too-far-off-future, Social Security and Medicare would face demands in the trillions of dollars as the baby-boom generation aged.  There was no practical way to pay those obligations in advance.  The most effective policy would be to pay down the debt, creating in the process additional savings, which in turn could increase the nations productive capacity and federal revenues at existing tax rates by the time the boomers hit retirement age."

Too many Republicans now want the government to give American taxpayer's money to nuclear power companies which makes government bureaucrats  the deciders about who are going to be the 'winners' in the energy supply marketplace.

American taxpayer's wealth was redistributed in the 1950's. The promise was that electrical power would be so cheap, that a wattmeter wouldn't even be needed on a house. Pay a flat fee of $2 a month and take as much 'juice' off the grid as you want. That's what was promised.

The only problem was that the nuke power industry got fat, lazy, and stupid sucking off the teat of the government sow.

Now, Republicans are planning the same 'great' idea. Once these companies get their taxpayer money, then a multi-million dollar bonus will be given to just too many power company executives. Remember the Wall Street handouts?  All they have done is garnish some taxpayer's monies and have produced nothing in the dreaded free market.
Slovenliness and stupidity will surely follow.

It's time to get the US government out of the picture when it comes to deciding who will be the winners and losers in the 'free' market.

When Republicans want to emulate Socialist/Marxist France, then you know they have shown their true stripes.

Too many Neo-cons like suppressing the real cost that America spends for its defense or national  security.  The number, often heard, is that the U.S. spends only 4% of GDP for defense.  This number represents only the budget for the Department of Defense.  Other departments in the US government also spend money for defense. 

To name a few, the Veterans Administration spends $73 billion per year.  The Department of Energy, annually,  spends $20 on nuclear weapons.  Other departments responsible for national security are the National Security Agency ($30 billion),  the CIA ($40) and one could even include the Coast Guard ($8 billion).  These are all yearly costs.  I'm tired of Neo-cons saying that the National Security Agency has nothing to do with national security.

Oh.  Let's add on the cost of the War on Terror.  The war in Iraq costs $120 a year and the war in Afghanistan costs $30 billion a year.
All this added up means that the U.S. spends double or about 8% of GDP on defense.  We conservatives can agree that honest assessments are needed to plan for the future, can't we?

All the borrowing and spending, borrowing and spending and more borrowing and spending during the George Bush years has, in itself, had the ability to raise tax revenues.

Here's how,

For example, borrow $400 million from China, then, Congress decides we need a critical infrastructure investment project like "a bridge to some island, populated with 40 people, somewhere in Alaska."

The U.S.A. borrows the money, pays the workers, and the workers pay income tax. If the construction company is unlucky, it may have to pay some corporate tax too.   This is one project, now multiply all the above by 14,287. Feel free to pick another country to borrow from.

Feel free to double the size of the Department of Education. Feel free to increase entitlement spending with Medicare Prescription (part D), and free to spend $150 billion on two wars, every year, and, in general, feel free to increase domestic spending across the board. Well, sorry, I lied, cut Amtrak, but who needs mass transit when the President tells us, "we are addicted to foreign oil as never before."

The USA went from a deficit of $4 to $9 trillion the past seven years. It only took 200 years to get to $4 trillion. This total outstanding debt works out to about $33,000 per person in the USA. Now those tax cuts do feel good at the moment, but is there any upper limit to our nation's credit card?

You got it. China.

The US taxpayer is subsidizing t-shirt manufacturing in China.  Go Figure!  Tom Delay’s district gets a lion’s share of the handouts.  Great work, Tommy Boy!

Check out these figures for farm welfare handouts from www.mulchblog.com.

Cotton subsidies for Texas

It came up in the Republican debate a few nights ago that HillaryCare would cost about $110 billion per year.   

Considering that the Bush administration and the Republican congress has expertly financed the Iraq war since 2003 with tax cuts and coincidentally moving the war's costs completely off-budget (not sure what that means)  then here's a good idea to pay for HillaryCare.   Let's double down on the tax cuts.    We double the Bush  tax cut  and spend all the money that's supply-sided on health care for the uninsured.   It seems like a Win-Win solution to me.

    Fred Thompson was asked during a Republican  Presidential debate to name one thing he would cut from the federal budget.  He said, "privatizing social security would be a budget cut that I will push for."  WRONG.

    Nothing could be further from the truth; privatizing social security.….is a short to medium term spending INCREASE.
    Under their most rosy of scenarios the private account system doesn't pay off until the young people that use it start to retire 30 years from now.  As young people divert their funds from the Social Security trust fund to their own retirement accounts then two to three trillion dollars will have to be borrowed, most likely from the Chinese, to pay those already retired and those nearing retirement.

    Let's see, one trillion dollars at a 5% interest rate is $50 billion a year.  It's time to look at this $100-$150 billion per year spending increase with eyes wide open!

Here's another poorly expressed thought on talking about privatizing Social Security. 

I can't stand it when self-named Conservatives say that "the Social Security Trust Fund is backed up by nothing but junk IOU's."   That has to be an un-Patriotic statement. 

Here's why.   Most stockbrokers, security analysts, investment bankers and certified financial analysts would agree that US treasury securities are the soundest, safest, most conservative investments in the world.   Why, because they are backed by the good faith of the US government and its citizens to repay their debts. The United States of America has a long history of repaying its debts. Our country has never defaulted. The taxpayers of the United States have a strong backbone and keen sense of fiduciary responsibility. Who would dare dispute that?

In fact, to dispute it, is to commit an act forbidden by the U.S. Constitution!

AMENDMENT XIV, Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned."

When a person equates the Social Security Trust Fund with junk, is this not questioning the debt of the United States?    When people bad-mouth Americans and our great country is this not an un-Patriotic act?   Some might even say, that the people calling our debt "junk", do indeed hate America! 

This is a talking point that should be eviscerated from the mouths of self-named Conservatives.

An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary for the purposes of national security, to cut US payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.

Our fearless leader Saddam developed Weapons of Mass Destruction to kill Americans.

The Americans came to Iraq putting themselves into close proximity to these very Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Saddam, scared off his public image being tarnished (he hoped, one day, to win a Nobel Peace Prize) banished his Weapons of Mass Destruction to a far away place called Syria. These weapons, unbeknownst to Saddam completely degraded over the next few months.

Saddam was found in a hole.

When we stand down the Americans will stand up. No, No.... when we, the Iraqis, stand up the Americans can stand down. Hoorah!!

We never stand up.